Question to pro-war: what do anti-war want to achieve?

Post-9/11 Era Forum

I am interested to find out what the pro-war people on this forum think the anti-war people are trying to achieve by posting here? Please try to keep to arguments rather than childish insults (fat chance).

Maybe trying to make us forget about or make us believe that nothing over the last 12 years matters, therefore making this war unjustified.

Like:
UN Resolution 687
Existing UN sanctions from non compliance of 687
UN Resolution 1441

Well, I have been thinking about this. Rather than focusing on the muddled hordes who scream rabidly that its all a conspiracy for the USA to steal oil, kill helpless children, get a day off from school to feel "part of something big man", and make the world our slaves, let's take a step back.

This is about power.

Now there is good power. And there is bad power.

Some think that all power is bad. I disagree.

The official French et al opposition is related to abstract power manifested in a perceived US domination of the world. This "feels" bad to them. It certainly feels bad to the terrorists and dictators.

LEt's not deny that power exists. The US built up immense power both economically and politically while "fighting" the USSR during the cold war. The US protected the free world, and the USSR collapsed.

Since the French et al no longer feel threatened by the USSR, they are anxious to assert themselves into a dominant position within the fledgling powerblock called the EU. Centers of power can define and further refine themselves only relative to other power centers. To define itself positively, the French must work to erode the power of the US. Its that simple.

If France wants to remain at the power table, they must ride the EU into opposition with the US, and take on allies where they can find them. If its the robber barrons/mafia oligarchs of Russia, so be it. If they can whip up the poor arab on the street into believing that the US will steal his wealth and rape his daughters - its all good.

France must do everything she can to counter the US. Last year they wanted to remove the embargo on Saddam so that they could increase business. Now they want to keep the embargo so that the US can't do business.

There isn't anything pretty about it so don't get duped.

Didn't you post some graphs of countries that supplied arms to Iraq? Nowar just gave me a big list of US firms (including Kodak - lol) to show what big business we did.

I think the graphs would be a poignant response but I can't remember the thread.

... any help...

http://i.xanga.com/dissidentfrogman/saddamgraph.gif

url: http://i.xanga.com/dissidentfrogman/saddamgraph.gif

Where does he get all these Pictures Of Mass Destruction (PMDS)

Jesus Rambo, you are the little retard aren't you. You've shown me this b******t site before...is this what you base your primitive opinions on? Come on monkey boy you can do better than that...

Reality is a b*itch, ain't it?

If you think reality exists within the text of that site you've refered to then your just fooling yourself. I'm not spouting conspiracy theories or waving flowers in the air calling for peace man, I'm talking to you about facts, U.N.I.C.E.F documents, U.N documents all readily available in this information age. Have you seen for example the effects of the use of depleted uranium tipped shells by the U.S army, have you read U.S state documents outlining pax americana and how that will be achieved? You just don't want to believe that this time the U.S are no longer "the goodies", that your country is comitting war crimes in other countires for the protection of U.S political and financial interests and to the deprement of less fortunate nations.

Your dismissiveness is below you charles. The use of depleted uranium - a recognised WMD- was a conscious choice made by the allied forces in the first gulf war. It is not the same as saying yeah well lots of thinks are deadly. After US contaminated Iraq and Kuwait with radiation they cleaned up Kuwait and deliberately left Iraq contaminated so the deadly radiation would kill evenn more civilians. Another conscious choice. The Iraqi UN ambassador asked for cleaning materials to decontaminate the soil and was refused by US. Another conscious choice.
And its all very well talking about lify=tibng sanctions now, the damage has been done. A million dead Iraqis. Ih yeah, another conscious choice.
Us has had a despicable history over Iraq and the so called liberation (which is bound to foul up in the hands of America) is precious little redress for the protracted genocide US and UK have been responsible for in two wars and over a decade of crippling sanctions.

Ho ho ho, come on Charles!! Depleted uranium is less toxic than naturally occurring radon??? 5000 children died per month after gulf war 1 from leukaemias and tumours- way, way above the usual expected rate from such diseases.
Genocide is the word used by people like Halliday and Von Spokel, UN humanitarian delegates who spoke out against the protracted imposition of sanctions. They were especially angry that food and chemotherapy drugs which were in urgent need thanks to DU contamination were restricted and held up by US and UK.
The only way 1 million Iraqis would not have died is if US and UK lifted sanctuions when it became clear that it was affecting only civilians rather than Saddam himself. They were aware of it and continued regardless.

Grimminick is right Charles, senior figures in the U.N including Dennis Halliday have been outspoken in their condemnation for the actions of the U.S in Iraq. The U.S and its people have to recognise the significance and effect of U.S foreign policy, specifically in Iraq, and realise that wrong decisions were made. Innocent people died, don't throw the arguement of Saddam Huesein's wrongdoing back without at least first recognising the negative role the U.S has played.

Thanks for the back up Ireland - much appreciated! I enjoy your posts by the way: well constructed and objective.

no, no, ....... what the hell is this ? US gov played negative role ? no, no, US gov <> negative


you can give anything which prove that US played negative role, some will never admit it ........


you will see that with the documents found in Iraq: everybody will take a smack, especially France, Russia and Germany, and even the good old friends but there will be nothing against US gov

whatch that link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...,941629,00.html

abstract:

Saddam had nothing to do with food and chemo. drugs reaching the Iraqi people. This was entirely down to sanctions and more specifically US and UK inclination to "hold up" vital medicines.
I repeat Charles: 5000 children per month died from DU radiation. This did not constitute a twelve year period as you calculated but for as long as DU contaminated the soil which I believe is less than twelve years. Whatever the final count was it was still entirely unecessary.

In June 1945 Eisenhower told his staff, "The success of this occupation [the Allied invasion and occupation of Nazi Germany] can only be judged fifty years from now. If the Germans at that time have a stable, prosperous democracy, then we shall have succeeded."

Hopefully it won't take quite that long in Iraq.

___
"Sometimes, There's No Substitute for U.S. Might."

Bit,

I've heard theories about wonder drugs, fusion energy, etc.

IF ANY OF THIS WERE TRUE, AND THESE SOLUTIONS EXISTED, THEN SOMEONE WOULD FIND A WAY TO BRING IT TO MARKET. FACT!

Now if you are talking about some theory about a possible cure that may be developed after 20-30 years and tens of billions of dollars spent, that may in fact not work, then I can imagine that a commercial organization trying to compete and survive and bring the most effective drugs to market the fastest would be unlikely to pursue such a project whole heartedly.

If we were reasonable close, various medical associations (professional not commercial) would be presenting their findings, and various governments would get involved to sponsor the research? Why? Prestige and power! What glory would be heaped upon the country that created this antidote! Even if the corrupt fascist US gov't wouldn't do it - the Canadians or the French or the Swedes certainly would - wouldn't they?

Charles,
I don't have a link for the DU deaths of children in Iraq, rather it can be found in the book The New Rulers of the World by John Pilger. It's an excellent acount of American exploits around the globe with one chapter dedicated to the first gulf war. To an open minded person like yourself I think you'll find it a highly interesting (and disturbing) read.

I won't bother recommending the book to you Rambo cos it doesn't have any colourful pictures in.

I believe you would Rambo. I believe you would toss away anything that challenged your unshakeable belief in your country no matter how steeped in evidence it was. You would toss it away because you're a tosser...hahaha

I believe, with no doubts, that you're an idiot who believes everything he reads. What is more disturbing, though, is that you can type.

I believe, with no doubts, that you're an idiot who believes everything you read. What is more disturbing, though, is that you can type.

Rambo why have you got stuff about 9/11 as your sign off "sleeping giant". Are you one of the dumbasses who wee actually persuaded to believe there is aconnection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

Yeah yeah yeah we know what Bush said, the point is there IS no connection. Never was, So why are you masquerading the same stuff about 9/11 in connection with a forum on the war in Iraq.

In response to the Depleted Uranium argument, here's the World Health Organization Factsheet:

Du Factsheet

Here's a .mil site that has a factsheet:

DU Factsheet #2

I'm going now Rambo. You still fail to answer a single question. In over 500 posts you achieve nothing other than waste people's time.
Let me leave you with one thought. When I came onto this forum and read the posts, particularly the anti war posts, I was impressed by the depth of knowledge people had. I couldn't match it. My argument against the war was simply one of gut feeling that it was wrong. So I researched it myself. I read a variety of books about Iraq history and the US role in the world. They consistently gave the same messages, the ones I now use in my own arguments. My point is I bothered to look at the issue and you didn't. I recognised the need to educate myself to understand the truth about this war, and you didn't. I wasn't prepared to accept the propaganda of politicians and mass media, and you are. In over 500 posts you have completely failed to address any aspect of this debate because quite simply you can't.

"Got your back man"

Not at all, Rambo. Paulwog's post was very interesting and I'm looking again at the DU argument. My source and his source are in contradiction but he has posted from a WHO source which I respect. The only links you make are from US government sources and can hardly be treated with any credibility by people who simply do not trust what the Bush administration says.

You guys shouldn't spoil your nerves too much on this issue. I was and i am pro-war all the time for one single reason. No, not iraqis' freedom, not WMDs, not oil, ... If US wants this war, then it must be good for US in some way. If it's good for US, then it's good for Canada, and that's what really matters to me. If idiot Jean Cretien supported America it would be much better... but now we have what we have and not more.
Same with British people, but their PM is a bit smarter.

As a pro-war person...let me try to add what I think about this one... Do I feel that the U.S. was justified in this war? I thought so at first...now I am not so sure, unless they find some weapons of mass destruction. Here is my take though.....

There are many countries (or should I say dictators) that do not like democracy for it takes away their own power to rule people's lives. I believe that the only way to achieve peace in the world (and I assure you that will probably never happen) is to give everyone in every country the same freedoms we have. People like Saddam scare me. The things he and his sons could have achieved if not take out could have been damaging especially to the U.S.

Pro-war or anti-war, it doesn't matter, everyone wants peace in the world. I hope the Iraqi's can finally get their peace and freedom. After being prisoners in their own home for so long...isn't that the what anti war people are really fighting for? Protesting is fine to a point, but the reason we have the freedoms to do so is because of the fighting that has been done since the fight against freedom from British ruling. Sometimes we have to go to war to achieve the peace people are really looking for.

Overall...I believe that some wars are justified and some are not...this one though remains to be seen!

Americaaah: Hey DaveDum, of-course democracy does NOT necessarily bring peace. But dictators must be brought down, sometimes by military force.

And there will never be equality as such in the world. That is a dreamer's fantasy and a propagandist's favorite tune. Nations will always be more powerful than others. And there will always be wars when problems need to be resolved that cannot be resolved peacefully.

Dreamers fantasy? You're all heart. I know very well that neither people nor countries can ever be equal. I'm not talking about everyone being equal - I'm talking about the world heading in a direction where inequality is not so offensively enormous and getting worse (Bill Gates was just an example but people or countries, it's the same). 3000 peope died on 9/11, but 3000 children die everyday from malaria in Africa (and I know the reasons for poverty are complicated)

Your remark about the U.S. being 'ridiculously powerful' holds no water whatsoever. Superiority in arms and technology is what SAVES LIVES (and proves to be a deterant as well). In WWII, 295,000 American soldiers lost their lives. Most died during the last 11 months of the war as the Allies drove into Nazi Germany. The opposing armies, at that time, where more equally matched.

No it will not save lives. It will just make it easier for America to do whatever they want economically and militarily to anyone they see as stepping out of line (which is what their old friend Saddam did). Nuclear weapons are the only way any country can protect itself against the States and when Star Wars is finished American military dominance will be supreme.

Also, your remark: '...if any half-baked idiots get into power they could actually start thinking - hey we could rule the world!' is also quite ludicrous. Half-baked idiots don't 'get into power'. These are qualified political figures who earn their positions by being elected into office by a free democratic society. (May I remind you that 7 out of every 10 Americans support The U.S. President and the war?) So don't go over the edgeon us—start taking slow deep breaths for a minute or so.

Your faith in your government is touching. Considering America's history over the last 50 years I do not understand the blind trust you have in them. These are Reagonites in power right now. Their record in South America is appauling. There interest in human rights is appauling. I can at a stretch imagine that Bush has the best of intentions but I just can't get the image to stick.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DaveDom
[B]I'm talking about the world heading in a direction where inequality is not so offensively enormous and getting worse (Bill Gates was just an example but people or countries, it's the same). 3000 peope died on 9/11, but 3000 children die everyday from malaria in Africa (and I know the reasons for poverty are complicated)

Then, why don't you offer up your yearly salary to save the children.

Nuclear weapons are the only way any country can protect itself against the States and when Star Wars is finished American military dominance will be supreme.

Whatever you say, bro.

Your faith in your government is touching. Considering America's history over the last 50 years I do not understand the blind trust you have in them. These are Reagonites in power right now. Their record in South America is appauling. There interest in human rights is appauling. I can at a stretch imagine that Bush has the best of intentions but I just can't get the image to stick.

You're entitled to your opinion about America and its govt. And America is entitled to its so called 'Reag[a]nites.'

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DaveDom


([B]Bill Gates earning more than the GDP of the combined wealth of several of the poorest nations in the world is a recipe for disaster).


BTW, this is called FREE enterprise. Something I am certain in which American had to fight for! You say you want equality. There was equality in Iraq......they were all poor. Why? No free enterprise. The gov't took it all! Now as you have a problem with the American gov't, I am sure you are living better than most. Are we as Americans supposed to tell Bill Gates that everything he worked for should be taken away and spread out for everyone to share. you cannot take all the jobs in the world and dole out the same amount of money for each because it would not be fair or equal (you know...the one thing you are looking for). There has to be a better way to argue for peace than equality!

Mystic, I don't live in America. I visited once, the place is quite something but I would rather live in Britain. In Britain we have a freer press and television than you do in the States. It's not perfect but it doesn't get away with the kind of biased propaganda your networks pump out.

As for rights, many people, not just soldiers have fought for people's rights. It's called protest.

Americaaaaaa!: Then, why don't you offer up your yearly salary to save the children.
That is trite. I've heard it many times before. Charity is not the way to solve poverty in the world. The rich west should stop screwing the poor and give them a break. Free trade is a joke. The IMF, World Bank, and WTO are hardly even subtle at hiding the fact that they stack everything in favour of western business. It would be criminal if it was done the other way. In fact when American steal was under threat from cheap imports the US slapped a tarrif on it. Free markets = free to plunder and screw the poor.